The Signpost

Discussion report

Athletes are less notable now

Contribute  —  
Share this
By EpicPupper and Sdkb

The Discussion Report is back, and here to stay! The editors of The Signpost regret that the past four months were not covered. We have attempted to summarize in-depth some previous discussions and briefly report on others. Please review the archives of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion or various other logs to see further discussions.

Major changes to WP:NSPORT

For extensive coverage of this discussion's origins, see the January deletion report.

A discussion was initiated on 27 January 2022 with many proposals regarding changes to the subject notability guideline WP:NSPORT. 13 subproposals were created.

Wugapodes, RandomCanadian, and Cbl62 collectively closed all of the subproposals of the discussion. – E

Administrator activity requirements poised to be heightened

A major request for comment (RfC) on administrator activity requirements was opened on 17 March by Arbitration Committee member Worm That Turned. The current standard, adopted in 2011, requires that an admin be completely inactive for a year before their bit may be removed. Many admins are only marginally active—less than half have made more than 30 edits in the past two months—and multiple ArbCom proceedings in recent months have centered on questionable behavior from marginally active legacy admins. The proposal suggests increasing the minimum to an average of 20 edits per year over five years. The (active) community appears highly enthusiastic about the idea, with the 10 oppose !votes as of press time barely noticeable in a blizzard of 170 supports. The only real question is whether there will be consensus for a further heightened standard of an average of 100 edits per year over three years first raised by ArbCom member Barkeep49. [1] – Sd

User access level requirements for deprecation RfCs

A Request for Comment regarding whether source deprecation RfCs should require certain user access levels (e.g. autoconfirmed, extendedconfirmed) was opened on 11 January 2022. Editors discussed a variety of viewpoints. Many editors supporting Option 1 (the status quo no protection) pointed to previous deprecation RfCs where users that were sockpuppeting were all extendedconfirmed. An example provided was The Jewish Chronicle RfC. They expressed concerns that this change would not benefit discussions for the majority of deprecation RfCs. Other contributors expressed protecting these discussion pages goes against User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles and WP:RULECREEP. Meanwhile, editors supporting Option 2/3 (protection) cited that if only more experienced editors were allowed to participate, quality of discussions will improve, and that deprecation RfCs are already in a very complicated field inside Wikipedia that newcomers might not understand or even have strong opinions for. The RfC was closed on 2 February 2022 with general consensus to keep the status quo of no protection. This close did not override consensus regarding ARBPIA-related RfC protections. – E

In brief

This section covers discussions that were not covered in-depth above, in chronological order.

Disclosures

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Disclosure: The author of this segment !voted or participated in any other way in the discussion.


S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
Done 92.18.179.64 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0